On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 07:00 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 22:43 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > As fasteoi type chips never had to define their ack() method before the
> > recent Ingo's change to handle_fasteoi_irq(), any attempt to execute handler
> > in thread resulted in the kernel crash. So, define their ack() methods to be
> > the same as their eoi() ones...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> > Since there was no feedback on three solutions I suggested, I'm going the way
> > of least resistance and making the fasteoi type chips behave the way that
> > handle_fasteoi_irq() is expecting from them...
>
> Wait wait wait .... Can somebody (Ingo ?) explain me why the fasteoi
> handler is being changed and what is the rationale for adding an ack
> that was not necessary before ?
To be more precise, I don't see in what circumstances a fasteoi type PIC
would need an ack routine that does something different than the eoi...
and if it always does the same thing, why not just call eoi ?
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
